South Atlantic Coastal StudyRepor t Roll-out Meeting: MississippiOctober 19, 2021

22

Housekeeping

• Lines will start as muted but can be opened for discussion. Please mute yourself when not speaking to limit background noise.

– Use the raise hand feature to alert staff you have a comment

• Questions and comments can also be submitted via the chat box throughout the presentation

– If having technical difficulties reach out via chat to staff.

• A PDF of the slides is available in the Handouts section.

3

Team Introduction

Command Center TeamAshleigh Fountain Project ManagerMatt Schrader Planning LeadDrew Condon Engineering LeadLisa Clark OutreachKristina May Environmental LeadTrevor Lancaster Geospatial LeadIdris Dobbs Economics LeadClay McCoy RSM

Mobile District Project Delivery TeamMeredith LaDart Project ManagementTonya Harrington Mobile District PlannerElizabeth Godsey Coastal EngineeringWendy Weaver Cultural ResourcesKat McConnell EnvironmentalKim Elmore GIS SpecialistJohn Nielsen EconomistAllan Annaert Cost Engineer

CDM SmithDonie Grimsley Facilitator

4

Virtual Poll – What type of organization do you represent?

State/Local Agency Academia

Non-Governmental Agency Other

Federal Agency/Tribal Nations

5

South Atlantic Coastal Study (SACS) Report Roll-out Meeting: Agenda

Intro / Purpose

• Introductions• Meeting Purpose• Link to Released

Report

SACS Overview

• Shared Vision• Study Area• Study Framework

Comment Collection

• Report Access• Comment Collection• Feedback

Consideration

Overview of Reports

• Main Report• Technical Appendices• Geoportal• Mississippi Appendix• Focus Area Action Strategies

66

Meeting Purpose

Provide a brief overview of the South Atlantic Coastal Study (SACS) reports and products

Present DRAFT SACS findings and recommendations for the state of Mississippi

Walk through report structure and organization to facilitate stakeholder review

2

3

1

7

SACS Report Now Availablehttps://www.sad.usace.army.mil/SACS/

8

Virtual Poll – What involvement have you had in the SACS process?

Attended Field Workshop (December 2019)

Attended Focus Area Webinars

(July – Dec 2020)

Attended Environmental/ Cultural/ Military

Webinars(July – Dec 2020)

Attended Any SACS Quarterly Webinar No Previous Involvement

SACS Overview

10

SACS Shared Vision

The SACS vision is to provide a common understanding of risk from coastal storms and sea level rise to support resilient communities and habitats. This collaborative effort will leverage stakeholders’ actions to plan and implement cohesive coastal storm risk management strategies along the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast shorelines, including the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

11

Study Area

Approximately 65,000 miles of tidally influenced coastline in the South Atlantic Division area of responsibility affected by sea level rise where hurricane and storm damages are occurring or are forecast to occur.

12

Applying the Framework

FULL STUDY AREA STATE/TERRITORY

13

Applying the Framework: Geographic Scales

Overview of Reports

15

SACS Reports and Products

South Atlantic Coastal Study Main Report

AL: Western Mobile Bay and Tensaw River DeltaEngineering Appendix

Geospatial Appendix

Alabama Appendix

Georgia Appendix

North Carolina Appendix

Puerto Rico Appendix

South Carolina Appendix

U.S. Virgin Islands Appendix

Mississippi Appendix

Florida Appendix

Outreach Appendix

Appendices Focus Area Action Strategies

GA: Chatham CountyGA: Glynn County

FL: Northeast FloridaFL: East Central FloridaFL: Southeast FloridaFL : Southwest FloridaFL: Tampa Bay RegionFL: Panama City, Panama City Beach, Mexico Beach, and Tyndall Air Force BaseFL: Pensacola, Fort Walton Beach, and Destin

Supporting Documents

Measures and Costs Library Report

Institutional and Other Barriers Report

Coastal Program Guide

2020 Regional Sediment Management Optimization Update

Sand Availability and Needs Determination (SAND) Report

SACS Geoportal

Planning Aid Report

Environmental Technical Report

Tier 2 Economic Risk Assessment Report

MS: Greater PascagoulaMS: Biloxi-GulfportNC: Dare County and OcracokeNC: Carteret and Craven CountiesNC: New Hanover and Brunswick CountiesPR: Cabo RojoPR: Isabela to RincónSC: Grand StrandSC: Charleston MetroUSVI: ChristianstedUSVI: Charlotte Amalie

16

Main Report Organization

Executive SummarySection 1 – Study OverviewSection 2 – Stakeholder EngagementSection 3 – Findings Section 4 – Applying the Framework: Tier1Section 5 – Applying the Framework: Tier 2Section 6 – Institutional and Other BarriersSection 7 – Recommendations

17

Section 3 - Regional Findings

1. Significant coastal storm risk and consequential flooding exists throughout the study area and will dramatically increase as sea level rises and critical thresholds are surpassed.

2. Significant risk exists where development practices have created areas of dense infrastructure with limited or nonexistent adaptive capacity to contend with changing conditions.

3. Existing CSRM actions that are deemed effective should be maintained and modified in relation to changing conditions and should serve as examples for needed actions.

4. Regional sediment management (RSM) and beneficial use of dredged material strategies support economically sustainable and environmentally acceptable solutions to reduce coastal risk and must continue to be advanced throughout the region.

5. Joint responsibility is critical to risk management, as the footprint and complexity of coastal risk is continuing to increase. Because all stakeholders play a part in managing risk, collaborative planning among local, state, tribal, and federal entities, NGOs, academia, business, and industry must improve and burgeon actions to reduce risk.

6. Shared tools and information will assist in assessing, communicating, and addressing risk.7. Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBFs) are viable options for reducing coastal risk and providing co-

benefits.8. Where avoidance of risk is not possible, communities should adopt combinations of solutions, including

nonstructural, structural, NNBF, and programmatic measures to manage risk.9. RSM can supply sediment sources applicable for risk management efforts that provide monetary and

nonmonetary benefits.

19

Recommendation Organization

Near-term (< 5 years): • Less complex• Significant stakeholder momentum toward implementation, short

implementation timeframe• Maintain and adapt what works, implement ongoing/planned efforts

Mid-term (5-10 years) :• Increased complexity• Advance and implement emerging efforts

Long-term (> 10 years): • More complex recommendations requiring significant stakeholder

coordination before implementation• Example: Large scale implementation of changes to land-use, zoning, or

building codes

IMPLEMENTATION TIMINGTiming for implementation is influenced by stakeholder collaboration needed, technical complexity, stakeholder interest, and other factors.

Activities and Areas Warranting Further Analysis

Address Barriers Preventing Comprehensive Risk Management

Design and Construction Efforts

Recommendations on Previously Authorized USACE Construction Projects

Regional Sediment Management Practices

Study Efforts

CATEGORIES FROM SACS AUTHORITY

20

Recommendations for Congress, Multi-Agency Action, and USACE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRIORITY (Level 1)

PRIORITY (Level 2)

PRIORITY (Level 3)

Other Recommendations

Number of Recommendations

Recommendation for Congress Recommendation for multi-agency action Recommendation for USACE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Near-Term(<5 years)

Mid-Term(5-10 years)

Long-Term(>10 years)

Number of Recommendations

Impl

emen

tatio

n Tim

ing

Recommendation for Congress Recommendation for multi-agency action Recommendation for USACE

202 draft recommendations

21

Recommendation Summary Spreadsheet

• Recommendation summary spreadsheet available to download from SACS website

• Able to sort and filter by available categoriesRec ID

Authority Category

Recommendation for Implementation

TimingState/ Territory Regional Priority Recommendation Description

Next Step to Implementation

1 Activities and Areas Warranting Further Analysis

Recommendation for USACE

Near-Term (<5 years) All Regional Priority Acknowledge and consider environmental benefits as a factor in deciding on a recommended plan in all future CSRM studies that include beach nourishment. Use methods that account for environmental benefits in traditional habitat units and economic quantities (monetized).

Given the significant environmental benefits incidentally provided by many beach nourishment projects, and in accordance with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) policy directive, “Comprehensive Documentation of Benefits in Decision Document,” efforts to fully acknowledge and consider environmental benefits as a factor in deciding on a recommended plan should be made in all future CSRM studies that include beach nourishment. Future work should also include methods to account for environmental benefits, not only in traditional habitat units, but also in economic quantities.

guidance/policy

2 Activities and Areas Warranting Further Analysis

Recommendation for USACE

Near-Term (<5 years) All Regional Priority SACS key products should be maintained and updated by USACE and utilized, as applicable, by USACE and stakeholders to support consistent, efficient, and effective analyses.

SACS products can assist project delivery teams more efficiently carry out study efforts by providing a common set of tools and products. Products also provide users and reviewers with a common baseline/understanding to support more efficient and effective analyses and reviews. SACS key products and associated training on their use should be provided within USACE and to interested stakeholders throughout the study area, ideally in joint training with other federal and state agencies incorporating additional tools and products.

funding

3 Activities and Areas Warranting Further Analysis

Recommendation for multi-agency action

Mid-Term (5-10 years) All Regional Priority Advance ongoing interagency work to improve understanding and application of compound flooding effects on existing and future coastal storm risk.

Separate from the SACS, the U.S. Congress has directed the USACE ERDC to collaborate with academia to conduct research into compound flooding. In addition, USACE is partnering with other federal agencies (e.g., NOAA, FEMA, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) and other non-governmental agencies. Significant work is required to establish a cohesive framework to proactively manage the risk presented by compound flooding events. At maturity, this framework should provide an encompassing approach to all aspects of compound flooding effects in coastal regions subject to both coastal and pluvial/fluvial flood-risk drivers, updating/developing technical guidance, advancing long-term monitoring of data collection, enhanced numerical modeling, and establishing a robust statistical approach to the coincidence of events that contribute to compound flooding.

stakeholder collaboration

22

SACS Geoportal

• Provides access to study datasets, products and documentation

• Zoom into datasets of interest

• Download datasets for individual use

SACS Geoportalhttps://data-sacs.opendata.arcgis.com/

23

Other Appendices

• Details risk associated with coastal hazards such as storm surge, wave attack, and erosion under current and future conditions

• Discusses engineering components of the coastal hazards system and sea level change analysis

• Details the Tier 1 Risk Assessment

• Discusses the geospatial datasets generated to better understand coastal risk, environmental risk, economic damages, and risk reduction efforts across the study area

• Describes the Engagement and Communications Plan which is the framework used for planning and executing communications associated with the SACS

• Details agency collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and communication methods and tools

ENGINEERING GEOSPATIAL OUTREACH

Questions

25

Mississippi Appendix Organization

Report Section Content CSRM Framework Step

Section 1: Introduction Objective of the document and organization of the report Step 1: Initiate AnalysisSection 2: Agency

Coordination and Collaboration

Overview of the collaborative efforts of the SACS study including stakeholder engagement, workshops, informational sessions, and federal partners

Section 3: Overview of Existing and Future Conditions

Provides geographic, climatic, and political context for the analysis and an overview of existing and expected future conditions

Step 2: Characterize Conditions

Section 4: Risk Assessment

Application of the Tier 1 Risk Assessment and development of the Mississippi-specific Tier 2 analysis used to identify high-risk areas

Step 3: Analyze Risk and Vulnerability

Section 5: Managing Risk

Overview of resources to support Mississippi resiliency efforts, including federal directives, resources, and funding to help communities better leverage needed resources

Step 4: Identify Possible Solutions

Section 6: Institutional and Other Barriers

Identification of institutional and other barriers impeding further risk reduction efforts

Section 7: Recommendations to Address Risks and Vulnerabilities

Recommendations of actions to address the risks identified in Section 4

Step 5: Evaluate and compare solutions

26

Section 4 - Risk Assessment

Definitions of risk components as utilized in the SACS include:

Hazard – In a general sense, hazard is anything that is a potential source of harm to a valued asset (human, animal, natural, economic, and social)

Exposure – Describes who and what may be harmed by the flood hazard. Exposure incorporates a description of where the flooding occurs at a given frequency, and what assets exist in that area.

Vulnerability – Susceptibility of harm to human beings, property, and the environment when exposed to a hazard. Depth-damage functions, depth-mortality functions, and other similar relationships can be used to describe vulnerability.

Risk – Combination of likelihood and harm to people, property, infrastructure, and other assets.

27

Section 4 - Risk Assessment

• Analysis performed per planning reach– Tier 1: summary of findings from the

consistent assessment across study area

– Tier 2: more refined state-specific assessment• Economic risk• Risk to environmental resources• Risk to cultural resources

28

Mississippi Risk Findings

• 14 High-Risk Locations in existing conditions, and 14 in future conditions with sea level rise• $243 million in estimated annual damages in existing conditions • $414 million in future conditions with sea level rise• 9 Priority

Environmental Areas Identified

29

Priority Environmental Areas

SACS Environmental Analysis identifies the areas at high risk to coastal storm damages as a result of sea level rise

Vulnerability x probability of the hazard = risk

Identify criteria to locate highest-risk (top-tier) areas

Examples:Critical habitatsSuitable habitats for listed speciesManaged landsState or other entity identified priority areas

30

Section 7 - Mississippi Recommendations

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Near-Term(<5 years)

Mid-Term(5-10 years)

Long-Term(>10 years)

Number of Recommendations

Impl

emen

tatio

n Tim

ing

Recommendation for Congress Recommendation for Multi-Agency Action Recommendation for USACE

33 draft recommendations

31

Mississippi State Priority Recommendations

Authority Category

Implementation Timing

Recommendation For Recommendation Description

Design and Construction Efforts

Near-Term (<5 years) Congress

Bayou Combest Ecosystem Restoration

The recommended plan will restore 148 acres. The recommended plan consists of acquiring lands and restoring the natural ecosystem by excavating old fill material, removing exotic plant species from non-excavated areas, filling existing artificial ditches, and planting native vegetation, such as Spartina alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass) at the seaward edge of marsh; Juncus roemerianus (Black Needle Rush) at a slightly higher elevation; and Spartina patens (Saltmeadow Cordgrass) at even higher elevations at a density of 1 meter- from the 2009 MCSIP Report

Design and Construction Efforts

Near-Term (<5 years) Congress

High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Program

"The recommended plan for immediate application for hurricane and storm damage reduction is a limited acquisition and relocation program, directed at approximately 2,000 of the most high-risk properties along the coastline. Benefits of the program include reduction of future damages and risks to lives within those areas, and incidental recreation and social effects benefits. Select areas within certain acquired areas would be available for ecosystem restoration and could also produce additional restoration benefits. The average annual average damages avoided for the 2,000 structures were determined to $33,000,000. The relocation of the Moss Point facilities would greatly reduce future damages to the local infrastructure and provide a higher confidence in uninterrupted public service in future events." - From the 2009 MSCIP Report

32

Focus Areas:• Represent areas of highest risk• Serve as examples of how Framework can be

applied in other high-risk locations

• Twenty-one focus areas throughout the study area• Minimum of one focus area in each state/territory

• Focus Area Action Strategies developed for each focus area using SACS key products and multiple agencies’ tools

SACS Focus Areas

“…a report recommending specific and detailed actions to address the risks and vulnerabilities…” -WRDA’16, Sec. 1204

33

Focus Area Action Strategy Organization

Section 1 – IntroductionSection 2 – Problems and OpportunitiesSection 3 – Objectives and ConstraintsSection 4 – Existing and Future ConditionsSection 5 – Action Strategy DevelopmentSection 6 – Recommendations

34

Environmental Risk Assessment

Biloxi/Gulfport Greater Pascagoula

35

Economic Risk Assessment – Biloxi/Gulfport

• Economic risk increases from $83 million to $141 million EAD with 3 feet of sea level rise.

• This does not account for economic risk to potential new developments, only existinginfrastructure.

36

Economic Risk Assessment – Greater Pascagoula

• Economic risk increases from $64 million to $128 million EAD with 3 feet of sea level rise.

• This does not account for economic risk to potential new developments, only existinginfrastructure.

37

From Shared Vision to Strategy

SHARED VISION

ACTIONS

Steps that incrementally contribute to the shared vision– Nonstructural Actions– Structural Actions– Natural & Nature-Based Actions

Broad goal for the FAAS– Address Problems– Realize Opportunities

Combines actions to advance the shared vision

“The focus area vision is to develop a stakeholder-led, science-based, comprehensive plan to address coastal storm risk and sea level change while strengthening the economic, environmental, and social resilience of Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi, for current and future generations.”

STRATEGY

38

Lines of Defense Strategies

Developed actions were grouped into the following lines of defense (LOD) strategies:• LOD-1 – offshore island and breakwaters

• LOD-2 – mainland beaches and dunes

• LOD-3– raised roadways, seawalls, and ring levees within highly populated centers

• LOD-4 – preserves the estuarine and delta shoreline environment as much as possible

• LOD-5 – explores actions that address risk reduction through long-term planning and policy changes

Strategy Key Actions

LOD-1

Ecosystem Restoration and Line of Defense Strategy Alignment – Continue collaboration and partnerships among state, local, nongovernmental, and federal organizations to implement beneficial use and RSM strategies that align ecosystem restoration with line of defense strategies.

LOD-2

Coastwide Beach and Dune Restoration – This could be implemented after engineering and design as part of the MSCIP Comprehensive Plan with the State of Mississippi and other nonfederal partnerships. Shoreline Management Study for Beach Areas along the Graveline Beach and Bayou Shoreline – This could be implemented as partnerships among state, local, nongovernmental, and federal organizations.

LOD-3

Ring Levee Implementation – Conduct a study to evaluate the feasibility of ring levees around populated centers located within the high-hazard area of the coast. This could be implemented as part of the MSCIP Comprehensive Plan with State of Mississippi and other nonfederal partnerships.

High-Hazard Zone Parcel Buyout – Conduct a voluntary buyout of parcels within the high-hazard zone that are currently occupied, could be reoccupied by new structures, or interspersed vacant parcels that could be occupied in the future. The first phase of HARP would include 2,000 of the total approximated 15,000 parcels located in the high-hazard zone. This also includes relocating four municipal structures in Moss Point, Mississippi. This could be implemented with federal, state, local, and other nonfederal partnerships.

LOD-4

Land Conservation and Restoration – Continue collaboration and partnerships among state, local, nongovernmental, and federal organizations to implement land conservation and restoration.Wetland Restoration and Line of Defense Strategy Alignment – Continue collaboration and partnerships among state, local, nongovernmental, and federal organizations to implement beneficial use and RSM strategies that align wetland restoration with line of defense strategies.

LOD-5Address Critical Infrastructure – Collaborate with multiple programs and funding sources to address risk to critical infrastructure that has been identified as part of Hazard Mitigation Planning.

Example from Greater Pascagoula

39

Focus Area Action Strategy – Recommendations

Example recommendations from Biloxi/Gulfport:

Authority CategoryImplementation

TimingRecommendation For Recommendation Description

Study Efforts (follow-on USACE feasibility study)

Near-Term (<5 years)

CongressBiloxi River-Shorecrest Ecosystem Restoration

This area was identified as a follow-on USACE study from the 2009 MSCIP report. The collaborative effort with the State identified a significant acreage that could be restored without the need for additional land acquisition. The project features that are designed to restore the hydrology and natural landscape of the coastal counties with incidental risk reduction benefits. These areas are primarily undeveloped and are owned by the State of Mississippi as part of the Coastal Preserves Program. The potential project area includes 15 acres, 12 structures, 25 parcels which includes emergent aquatics and Bayhead Swamp.

Study Efforts (follow-on USACE feasibility study)

Near-Term (<5 years)

Congress Ocean Springs Ring Levee

The 2009 MSCIP report recommended a future feasibility level analyses of local flood risk management components of the Comprehensive Plan. While large structural solutions such as surge gate barriers did not garner much local support, there were smaller scale structural solutions, such as smaller ring levees, local surge barriers, and levee alignments that have the potential to provide cost effective solutions. Possible ring levee alternatives identified as part of this study including ring levees at Ocean Springs.

Study Efforts (follow-on USACE feasibility study)

Near-Term (<5 years)

CongressSt. Martin CSR and Ecosystem Restoration

This area was identified as a follow-on USACE study from the 2009 MSCIP report. The collaborative effort with the State identified a significant acreage that could be restored without the need for additional land acquisition. The project features that are designed to restore the hydrology and natural landscape of the coastal counties with incidental risk reduction benefits. These areas are primarily undeveloped and are owned by the State of Mississippi as part of the Coastal Preserves Program. The potential project area includes 467 acres, 32 structures, 619 parcels.

Comment Collection

41

Submitting Your Comments

• Link to comment form is on the SACS website

• Comments will be considered but not responded to individually

• Comment period closes November 15, 2021

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SACS_commentsSouth Atlantic Coastal Study

Main Report

Engineering Appendix

Geospatial Appendix

Alabama Appendix

Georgia Appendix

North Carolina Appendix

Puerto Rico Appendix

South Carolina Appendix

U.S. Virgin Islands Appendix

Mississippi Appendix

Florida Appendix

Outreach Appendix

Appendices

42

Requested Information

• Name• Title• Organization• Town/City and State• Approval to Contact• Telephone Number• Email Address

Questions and Discussion

44

Looking Ahead

OCT 2021: Report Milestone: release of draft report for concurrent review

OCT 2021: District Draft Report Roll Out Webinars

JAN 2022: Incorporate comments into final report

AUG 2022: USACE South Atlantic Division approves final report

4545

Thank You

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONhttps://www.sad.usace.army.mil/SACS/

OUTREACHSACS@usace.army.mil

Command Center Team:Ashleigh Fountain – Jacksonville District Ashleigh.H.Fountain@usace.army.milLisa Clark – Outreach LeadLisa.M.Clark@usace.army.mil

Idris Dobbs – Economics LeadIdris.L.Dobbs@usace.army.milTrevor Lancaster – Geospatial LeadTrevor.R.Lancaster@usace.army.milDrew Condon– Engineering LeadAndrew.J.Condon@usace.army.milKristina May – Environmental LeadKristina.K.May@usace.army.milClay McCoy – RSM LeadClay.A.Mccoy@usace.army.milMatt Schrader – Planning LeadMatthew.H.Schrader@usace.army.mil

District Project Managers:Brennan Dooley– Wilmington DistrictBrennan.J.Dooley@usace.army.mil

Diane Perkins – Charleston DistrictDiane.Perkins@usace.army.milJeffrey Schwindaman – Savannah District Jeffrey.P.Schwindaman@usace.army.milAshleigh Fountain – Jacksonville District Ashleigh.H.Fountain@usace.army.milMeredith LaDart – Mobile District Meredith.H.LaDart@usace.army.mil